The 2008 Forum decisions

Digest of Decisions

This annex contains a composite of all decisions taken by the Meeting and marked in red in the body of the report. In this annex, names of experts tasked with implementing a decision are marked in red. Deadline dates are marked in blue.

3. STANDARDS PROCESS

(1) It was decided that the structure as proposed by the sessional working group is suitable. Some additional work needs to be done to prepare scope notes for all fields. Mr. Hankin and Ms. Bosch agreed to provide explanatory notes by end March 2008 of what should be included in each section to assist people using this template to submit a proposal.

(2) The meeting decided that the IODE/JCOMM Standards process should be structured as displayed in Figure 1 (below). Mr. Keeley, Mr. Mikhailov and Ms. Bosch will prepare the document that describes the process and circulate to meeting participants. This document will be submitted to the DMCG-3 meeting and therefore needs to be completed by mid March 2008.

(3) Bearing in mind the need for adhering to the JCOMM rules regarding the terms of reference and membership of subsidiary bodies, the meeting recommended that a Pilot Project on the IODE/JCOMM Standards Process be established by the JCOMM DMCG during its next Session in March 2008. This Pilot Project should be managed by a Task Team of which the membership will be decided by the DMCG and IODE Officers, taking into consideration the recommendations of the âFirst Session of the IODE/JCOMM Forum on Oceanographic Data Management and Exchange Standardsâ

(4) It was further recommended that the process cycle should typically be between 12-24 months.

(5) The meeting stressed that the standards dealt with by the IODE/JCOMM Standards process should be limited to oceanography and marine meteorology only.

(6) The meeting considered the question whether proposals could be submitted only by national/international groups or also by projects, individual institutions etc. The meeting decided that this would need further consideration. In addition the meeting recommended that other organizations such as ICES, PICES should be involved.

(7) The meeting further recommended that IODE/JCOMM should be pro-active in considering the need for certain standards rather than only wait for submissions as this would avoid that projects limited in time would create their own practices rather than submit a proposed standard.

(8) The meeting recommended that close collaboration should be established with other organizations such as GEOSS to widely advertise and promote the adopted standards.

(9) The group further recommended that the IODE Project Office should be used to support internal discussions. Also a voting/polling system should be set up (similar to the system developed for DMAC).

4.1. METADATA

The meeting agreed that ISO-19115 or a community profile of ISO-19115 should be used for creating discovery metadata but did not identify a recommended profile;

(10) It was agreed that Mr. Reed will undertake a comparison between CDI, MCP and WMO profiles [deadline: end of April 2008];

(11) It was agreed that Mr. Reed will recommend a metadata profile that will meet the needs of the community and will be interoperable with other community and project profiles [deadline: mid-2008];

(12) The Canadian NODC will upgrade the metadata creation tool to support the recommended profile and make it available (assuming resources become available). [deadline: end of March 2009];

(13) In addition to the Canadian metadata tool, consideration should also be given to the âMikadoâ, Java tool developed by SeaDataNet;

(14) It was agreed that SeaDataNet will help test compliance to ISO-19115 of the Canadian discovery metadata records; by March 2009.

(15) It was agreed that functional requirements for discovery and other metadata, based on E2E experience will be prepared by Mr. N. Mikhailov [deadline: mid February 2008]

4.2. ONTOLOGY RESOURCES

(16) There was no recommendation on the use of ontologies at this time. More work is required and should be supported by IODE and JCOMM

4.3. DATE AND TIME

(17) It was recommended to adopt the ISO-8601 standard (using extended format) where appropriate while recognizing some limitations;

(18) It was agreed that Mr. Reed will write the submission document [deadline: end of 2008, depending on the availability of the template].

4.4. LATITUDE, LONGITUDE & ALTITUDE

(19) It was recommended to adopt the ISO-6709 standard;

(20) It was agreed that Mr. T. de Bruin will write the submission document [deadline: end of 2008, depending on the availability of the template].

4.5. COUNTRIES

(21) It was recommended to adopt the ISO-3166 (3166-1 and 3166-3) standard;

(22) It was agreed that Mr. Roy Lowry, Mr. H. Parner and US-NODC will map the IOC/ICES country codes to ISO-3166 [deadline: end of June 2008];

(23) It was agreed that Mr. Lowry will monitor ISO-3166 and keep our list up to date;

(24) It was agreed that US-NODC will prepare the submission document including text that explains the advantages of converting to this standard. [deadline: March 2008, depending on the availability of the template].

4.6. PLATFORMS

See 4.7

4.7. PLATFORM TYPES

(25) The meeting did not identify a recommended standard;

(26) It was agreed that ICES and US NODCS should continue the maintenance of their current lists;

(27) It was agreed that Mr. Lowry should repair L061, open content governance, SeaVox, establish mapping to other lists and mappings to instances (such as ICES) [deadline: end of June 2008]

4.8. QUALITY CONTROL: TEMPERATURE & SALINITY PROFILES

(28) The meeting did not identify a recommended standard;

(29) It was agreed that Mr. R. Keeley and Mr. G. Reed will request GTSPP (through its Chair, Charles Sun), the Argo data management team, the DBCP and SOOPIP to revise IOC Manuals and Guides No. 22; [deadline: to be negotiated with Mr. Sun];

(30) It was agreed that GTSPP (Mr Sun) should prepare the submission document [deadline: to be negotiated with Mr. Sun].

4.9. QUALITY CONTROL: SURFACE TEMPERATURE & SALINITY

(31) The meeting did not identify a recommended standard;

(32) It was agreed that Mr. Keeley and Mr. Reed will request GOSUD (through Mr. L. Petit de la Villeon, GOSUD Co-Chair) to revise their QC documentation (reference was made to the GOSUD meeting that will take place in June 2008) [deadline: end of August 2008];

(33) It was agreed that the revised GOSUD QC documentation should be added (by the Secretariat) to the oceandatastandards reference web site [deadline: end of August 2008].

4.10. QUALITY CONTROL: SEA LEVEL

(34) The meeting did not identify a recommended standard;

(35) It was agreed that Dr L. Rickards will lead the revision of the ESEAS QC document in close collaboration with the GE-GLOSS [deadline: April 2009];

(36) It was agreed that Dr L. Rickards will prepare the submission document [deadline: early 2009];

4.11. QUALITY CONTROL: CURRENTS

(38) The meeting did not identify a recommended standard;

(39) It was agreed that Ms. Z. Willis will provide a document on moored ADCPs and current meters to Dr. L. Rickards who will consolidate these with IOC Manuals and Guides No. 26 and provide the result for inclusion in the oceandatastandards reference web site [deadline: September 2008];

(40) It was agreed that Ms. J. Bosch will provide HF-radar documentation for inclusion in the oceandatastandards reference web site [deadline: mid-February 2008].

4.12. QUALITY CONTROL: SURFACE WAVES

(41) The meeting did not identify a recommended standard;

(42) It was agreed that US-IOOS and Dr. L. Rickards will lead the update of the IOC Manuals and Guides No. 26 on waves. [deadline: document collation to be completed by April 2008];

(43) It was agreed that US IOOS will provide the US national waves plan [deadline: May 2008];

(44) It was agreed that US IOOS will prepare the submission document [deadline: by August 2008].

4.13. QUALITY FLAGS

The meeting did not identify a recommended standard.

4.14. PROJECTS

(45) The meeting noted that many lists exist but that there is no clear candidate for a standard at this time. It was considered that a reference list of projects can be useful to match projects with data as well as with institutions and people. In this regard an ontology approach was mentioned. She will present a case for selecting one.

4.15. INSTITUTIONS

(46) The meeting noted that many lists exist but that there is no clear candidate for a standard at this time. Making reference to item 4.14 it was noted that there should be a link between institutions and projects.

4.16. UNITS

This item was not discussed at the meeting.

4.17. INSTRUMENTS

(47) The meeting concluded that rather than having multiple lists we should have an instrumentation vocabulary that should be managed by one organization. This organization should be careful about deletion or redefinition of terms (in fact it was recommended not to delete) and new instruments should be added quickly. The meeting concluded that the GCMD instrument list is very comprehensive for satellite platform instruments but less so for marine instruments. The BODC list is good for marine instruments but has less granularity than GCMD. The meeting therefore recommended to use either of these two depending on the domain in which it will be used. The meeting also requested GCMD to consider a mapping between the GCMD and BODC.

4.18. SCIENCE WORDS

(48) The meeting considered the GCMD keywords and was informed that in GCMD most keyword are found under atmosphere, followed by biosphere and oceans. The meeting welcomed the GCMD keyword list but expressed its concern about deletion of keywords which had already caused serious problems in database systems. As a result BODC had made a copy of the GCMD list at a certain time and now uses that. The meeting concluded that the GCMD has an excellent keyword list but it would benefit from a revised management with special attention to the problems caused by deletions.

4.19. TAXA

(49) The meeting recommended that this matter be considered through the agreed upon process and that also the IODE GE-BICH should address this matter during their November 2008 meeting.

4.20. PARAMETERS

(50) The meeting concluded that at this time there is no single vocabulary that can be recommended. However it was suggested that the GCMD vocabulary be used for the time being but that a PUV based on GCMD be developed. GCMD was requested to assist with this.

6. WORK PLAN FOR FOLLOW-UP ACTIONS

REPORTING

(51) The meeting stressed the need to publish the report of this meeting as soon as possible to maintain the momentum gained. The meeting requested the Secretariat and the meeting co-chairs to make the report available by 15 February 2008.

COMMUNICATION

(52) The outcome of the meeting should be communicated as widely as possible through the IODE mailing list by the IODE Project Office as well as other relevant mailing lists [deadline: half February 2008].

(53) The meeting further emphasized the need to publicize the outcome of the meeting as well as the process that is now being established to adopt standards on core topics related to ocean data management. In this regard the need was recognized for a standard presentation and 1-page information document that can be used at various meetings and other events. The meeting requested Mr. T. De Bruin, Mr. R. Keeley and Mr. R. Gelfeld to prepare the 1-page information sheet by 12 February 2008.

The meeting stressed the need for the standards process to have an informative and easy-to-use web presence. In this regard the meeting made the following decisions:

(56) A new domain name www.oceandatastandards.org will be registered by the IODE Project Office (additional domains .net, .com and .info will also be registered and linked to the .org site) [deadline: 1 February 2008].

(57) A new web site will be established [by the Secretariat] (under the www.oceandatastandards.org domain) with a clear identity related to ocean data standards. This site will include:

(58) The rich information site prepared for the meeting by Murray Brown;
(59) For each topic discussed at the meeting (and for other future topics, a page that lists documents and their stage in the process of recommendation (recommended, in review, â¦);
(60) General information on the standards site, on the standards process, on the partners, etc.;
(61) Online tools for submission and processing of candidate standards;
(62) Promotional materials.
(63) The web site banner should include the IOC, WMO, IODE and JCOMM logos, plus a sub-banner indicating support by IOOS and Flanders.

(64) A âstarter siteâ with minimum information (information subsite, 1-page info sheet,â¦) should be established by 15 February 2008 by the IODE Project Office and will be maintained by the IODE Project Office.

(65) In view of the close relation of the MMI web site and the oceandatastandards site for a number of topics, collaboration between these sites should be further discussed.

(66) It was further recommended to create a Wikipedia page on the standards process with a link to the new oceandatastandards.org site. Mr. Lowry agreed to create this page [deadline: May 2008]

MANAGEMENT

(67) In order to effectively manage the implementation of the work plan it was agreed that an ad hoc Steering Team will be established, composed of the JCOMM DMCG Chair (Robert Keeley), the IODE Co-Chair (Greg Reed), JCOMM/IODE ETDMP Chair (Nick Mikhailov) and a US IOOS representative.

(68) A more formal management structure will be discussed at IODE-XX (2009) and JCOMM-III (2009). The ad hoc Steering Team will report to IODE and JCOMM. The Steering Team will work mostly by email but the Team may request a formal meeting if needed (through the JCOMM and IODE Secretariats).

(69) The meeting also identified a need for testing (test-bed) of standards: this will be the task of the ETDMP Task Team for the Standards Pilot Project but it may also involve other partners.